Publikation:

Reconsidering Closure, Underdetermination, and Infallibilism

Vorschaubild

Dateien

Zu diesem Dokument gibt es keine Dateien.

Datum

2010

Autor:innen

Briesen, Jochen

Herausgeber:innen

Kontakt

ISSN der Zeitschrift

Electronic ISSN

ISBN

Bibliografische Daten

Verlag

Schriftenreihe

Auflagebezeichnung

URI (zitierfähiger Link)
DOI (zitierfähiger Link)
ArXiv-ID

Internationale Patentnummer

Angaben zur Forschungsförderung

Projekt

Open Access-Veröffentlichung

Sammlungen

Philosophie: Publikationen
Core Facility der Universität Konstanz

Gesperrt bis

Titel in einer weiteren Sprache

Publikationstyp
Zeitschriftenartikel
Publikationsstatus
Published

Erschienen in

Grazer Philosophische Studien. 2010, 80, pp. 221-234. ISSN 0165-9227. eISSN 1875-6735

Zusammenfassung

Anthony Brueckner (1994, 2005) argues for a strong connection between the closure and the underdetermination argument for scepticism. Moreover, he claims that both arguments rest on infallibilism: In order to motivate the premises of the arguments, the sceptic has to refer to an infallibility principle. If this were true, fallibilists would be right in not taking the problems posed by these sceptical arguments seriously. As many epistemologists are sympathetic to fallibilism, this would be a very interesting result. However, in this paper I will argue that Brueckner's claims are wrong: The closure and the underdetermination argument are not as closely related as he assumes and neither rests on infallibilism. Thus even a fallibilist should take these arguments to raise serious problems that must be dealt with somehow.

Zusammenfassung in einer weiteren Sprache

Fachgebiet (DDC)
100 Philosophie

Schlagwörter

Konferenz

Rezension
undefined / . - undefined, undefined

Forschungsvorhaben

Organisationseinheiten

Zeitschriftenheft

Zugehörige Datensätze in KOPS

Zitieren

ISO 690BRIESEN, Jochen, 2010. Reconsidering Closure, Underdetermination, and Infallibilism. In: Grazer Philosophische Studien. 2010, 80, pp. 221-234. ISSN 0165-9227. eISSN 1875-6735
BibTex
@article{Briesen2010Recon-30237,
  year={2010},
  title={Reconsidering Closure, Underdetermination, and Infallibilism},
  volume={80},
  issn={0165-9227},
  journal={Grazer Philosophische Studien},
  pages={221--234},
  author={Briesen, Jochen}
}
RDF
<rdf:RDF
    xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/"
    xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#"
    xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
    xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#"
    xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" > 
  <rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/30237">
    <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2015-03-12T12:24:26Z</dcterms:available>
    <dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">Anthony Brueckner (1994, 2005) argues for a strong connection between the closure and the underdetermination argument for scepticism. Moreover, he claims that both arguments rest on infallibilism: In order to motivate the premises of the arguments, the sceptic has to refer to an infallibility principle. If this were true, fallibilists would be right in not taking the problems posed by these sceptical arguments seriously. As many epistemologists are sympathetic to fallibilism, this would be a very interesting result. However, in this paper I will argue that Brueckner's claims are wrong: The closure and the underdetermination argument are not as closely related as he assumes and neither rests on infallibilism. Thus even a fallibilist should take these arguments to raise serious problems that must be dealt with somehow.</dcterms:abstract>
    <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
    <dcterms:title>Reconsidering Closure, Underdetermination, and Infallibilism</dcterms:title>
    <bibo:uri rdf:resource="http://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/30237"/>
    <void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/>
    <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/40"/>
    <dc:creator>Briesen, Jochen</dc:creator>
    <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/>
    <dcterms:issued>2010</dcterms:issued>
    <dc:contributor>Briesen, Jochen</dc:contributor>
    <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2015-03-12T12:24:26Z</dc:date>
    <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/40"/>
  </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>

Interner Vermerk

xmlui.Submission.submit.DescribeStep.inputForms.label.kops_note_fromSubmitter

Kontakt
URL der Originalveröffentl.

Prüfdatum der URL

Prüfungsdatum der Dissertation

Finanzierungsart

Kommentar zur Publikation

Allianzlizenz
Corresponding Authors der Uni Konstanz vorhanden
Internationale Co-Autor:innen
Universitätsbibliographie
Ja
Begutachtet
Diese Publikation teilen